Category: Uncategorized Page 1 of 2

The urban planning questions we should be asking about these businesses.

I have been involved in many downtown community plans professionally and have been active in my own neighborhood on economic development concerns and the question that I hear asked most often is along the lines of

Why can’t we get a Starbucks (or Trader Joe’s) in our community?

And the answer I generally give is along the lines of “why do you want a chain business that typically collects money from the community and spends it elsewhere?”

This isn’t typically a satisfactory answer, so let me extrapolate a bit. See, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s are seen as status signifiers – meaning that a neighborhood that has these stores is seen as having “made it” in whatever that means. Indeed, a Harvard Business School study has quantified the effect of having Starbucks on the community as increasing home prices by 0.5% in a year.

So, if you are a homeowner, why wouldn’t you want such a store?

Urban Design

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with having a major corporate chain in your community. In fact, most communities have them. The key is over-reliance on chains at the expense of small business. And the other key, in terms of urban planning is the urban design of these stores.

When evaluating a chain through an urban planning lens, a better way to look at the development is by urban design – that is, the architecture of the building, its site design and the context of the larger community. Thus, a Starbucks with a drive thru or a Trader Joe’s with 300 parking spaces is going to have a much larger impact in the context of a pre-war urban neighborhood in terms of its design and traffic impacts.

Take, for example, a recent proposal for a Starbucks in the 41st Ward on Harlem Avenue.

Rendering of Starbucks. Source: Nadig Newspapers

Does this look like the kind of thing anyone wants to see in an urban neighborhood? In fact, community members that evaluated the proposal said this:

Committee member Tony Chiavola expressed traffic concerns about the proposal, adding that a nearby Starbucks at Harlem and Northwest Highway creates traffic congestion at that intersection.
“What the heck do we need anther coffee shop in the neighborhood,” member John Kwasinski said. “I don’t see any reason it needs to be” rezoned for commercial use.

I wonder if Mr. Kwasinski would say the same thing if the Starbucks rendering looked something like Weston’s Coffee and Tap Co. in Jefferson Park.

In fact, I was quoted in the news a few years ago raving about how Weston’s Coffee would be “great for our community” precisely because of its reuse of an existing building and location across from the Jefferson Park Transit Center.

It turns out the people, even those not familiar with urban planning, instinctually get urban design and it’s impacts on their lives. Which is why you see complaints about auto-oriented development in residential areas. And why urban design that is inherently walkable tends to attract far less negative attention.

Perhaps the best question to ask about these types of developments is “what is the urban design context within which these businesses will be built?”

Planning for People: Land Use

By Ryan Richter

On April 21, 2015

In Uncategorized, Zoning

The Simplified Residential Zoning Map – Daniel Kay Hertz

In Chicago, where I live, land use planning is largely the domain of the zoning code. The Alderman has control over granting variances to the zoning code (Aldermanic prerogative). Thus, the Alderman’s office has tremendous control over whether anything gets built because, despite the fact that Chicago’s zoning ordinance was re-written only 10 years ago, much of the city is zoned for single family homes.

Now you might ask, how can this be? There are plenty of apartments on my block. Whether they are courtyard, two and three flats, or mid and high-rise, they are sprinkled all over the city. And my response to this is that those properties are grandfathered in as a “non-conforming use” – which is a land use that is permitted but does not conform to current zoning law. God help you if you want to rebuild or substantially alter your property; that triggers a need for a zoning variance. And this is the problem. Because as you can see from the map above, virtually the entire city is zoned for single family homes.

Daniel Kay Hertz developed the Simplified Residential Zoning Map to simplify the zoning code as it concerns residential land uses. Because when most people think of zoning, they think of density. And density is one of those bogeyman words, short for “not in my backyard” in many cases. I’ll let Daniel explain the implications:

One of the most under-appreciated aspects of Chicago’s housing system – although, thankfully, it’s becoming more well-known – is how radically the city restricts the kinds of housing that can be built in the neighborhoods. Forms of housing that are traditional all over the city, and that provide subsidy-free affordable housing for working class people, are illegal nearly everywhere outside of downtown and the lakefront. In fact, the vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods are zoned so that the only legal form of new housing is the single-family home – which in many places will necessarily be out of reach for moderate-income people. This is true even in neighborhoods, and on streets, where two-flats, three-flats, and other apartment buildings already exist. Essentially, we’ve imposed classic suburban exclusionary zoning in North Center, West Town, and elsewhere.

This is frustrating for urbanists like myself – seeing that virtually the entire city is non-conforming and that much of what I love about the city cannot be legally built today. We are essentially planning to slowly separate land uses – to essentially turn the city into the suburbs.

Fortunately, as my colleague Steven Vance points out, the City’s transit development ordinance has made it easier for multi-use and multi-family housing to be built. The catch: it can only be built within 600-1200 feet of a transit station (roughly 1-2 blocks).

I think it is vitally important that if we are planning for people, we are planning for various housing and accommodation types. Not everyone can afford or would want to live in a single family home. A city needs a variety of housing types for a variety of needs. And monotonous cities with separated land uses inevitably leads to more driving, as destinations are farther away. This then becomes, essentially, planning for cars.

New Beginnings

By Ryan Richter

On July 21, 2014

In Uncategorized

Today is a new day. A few weeks ago I announced my resignation as a transportation planner at Metra, the commuter rail agency in Chicago. Now I have started the next phase of my career as a transportation planning consultant with HNTB Corporation, working out of their Chicago office. One of the principal reasons for moving on for me was the opportunities that HNTB presented to build my career and nurture its development. Through no fault of its own, Metra is an operator of one very specific mode of transportation, and one that is largely built out. I now find myself working on plans for streetcars, bus rapid transit and light rail in a variety of cities around the country. Many of these projects are dynamic, providing new ways of increasing mobility. Understanding and planning for these different modes broadens my understanding of transportation planning while also working on modes that are very interesting, and challenging, to plan for.

Why should cities affect transportation mode share

By Ryan Richter

On August 23, 2012

In Transportation Policy, Uncategorized

They say bikes get in the way of traffic

Is this good for your city? For your health? (Photo credit: Richard Masoner / Cyclelicious)

In response to a comment in my last post, I’d like to discuss further how cities could affect transportation mode share,

particularly as it concerns driving. In the U.S., every single city has a dominant auto share (drive alone and carpool) except for New York, Washington D.C., Boston and San Francisco. In Chicago, where I live, the auto mode share is 61%. In the Chicago metro area, it’s 71%. So why is this a big deal? Why should urban policy be oriented towards reducing auto mode share?

It’s one way of efficiently managing an urban transportation system, for one. It also helps to deal with the following economic, social and environmental factors (externalities) associated with auto travel:

Rising facility costs. The costs of expanding highways and parking facilities is increasing. In many cases it is more cost-effective to manage demand than to continue expanding supply.

Increased urbanization. In most developed countries the majority (typically 80-90%) of people and jobs are located in urban areas, where traffic and parking problems are significant and alternative modes are cost-effective.

Demographics. The population is aging in most developed countries, increasing the importance of providing quality travel options for non-drivers.

Energy Costs. Vehicle fuel costs are projected to increase in the future due to depletion of oil supplies and environmental constraints.

Consumer preferences and market trends. Many consumers want to live in more multi-modal communities where it is possible to walk and bicycle safely, use neighborhood services, and have access to quality public transportation.

Environmental concerns. Concerns over air pollution, sprawl and other environmental impacts are motivating policy changes to encourage more efficient transportation.

In the context of the previous post, my skepticism towards traffic signal prioritization (TSP) is rooted in the rising facility costs and environmental concerns categories, although, all of these points can and should be applied. In cities where land is at a premium, we simply cannot afford to appropriate more land for the building of roads. And traffic signal prioritization, while making traffic move more efficiently in the short-term creates induced demand in the long-term. And then we are back to the original problem that traffic signal prioritization was trying to solve.

The environmental concerns, particularly concerning air quality in large cities is a serious concern that I addressed. Induced demand, which causes an increase in vehicle miles traveled, exacerbates air quality and emissions issues. There is a reason that most large U.S. cities are eligible for CMAQ grants. Those grants should not be used in TSP.

There are a variety of solutions (incentives) that cities could use to reduce auto mode share and shift towards alternative modes. For more information, see here.

Cars vs. Transit

By Ryan Richter

On July 4, 2012

In Parking, Transit-Oriented Development, Uncategorized

I’ve been mulling over Josh Barro’s contention that cars should not be blamed for the failures of mass transit and his conclusion that planning and zoning is to blame. His basic contention is thus:

…the real culprit keeping Americans away from mass transit and inside cars isn’t subsidies; it’s planning and zoning. Cities impose barriers to density that limit the number of housing units and offices that can be located near buses and trains, which reduces mass-transit usage. These barriers also drive up property prices in areas near mass transit, penalizing transit-oriented living and encouraging people to live farther from urban cores, in areas where they have to drive. Meanwhile, cities often require builders to include a minimum number of parking spaces in new developments, depressing the market price of parking and further rewarding drivers.

A better approach would take advantage of the fact that proximity to transit increases property values. Cities should allow dense development, collect the property taxes that are generated, and use them to finance transit. Increased development also means more transit users and more fare revenues. But locals tend to oppose greater housing density; they also often demand parking minimums, since they don’t want to face too much competition for free on-street parking. An ironic result is that the very urban liberals who like to complain about suburban sprawl can end up encouraging it.

I concur with the larger argument about minimum parking requirements and value capture but I believe the argument falls short. While, I see how decisions made in land use policy at the local level distort the market equilibrium of supply and demand when it comes to parking, it is not as simple as to just blame the planner and the zoning code. The fact is, sprawl is baked into the cake of modern urban (and suburban) development. This makes the failure (or at least, under utilization) of mass transit easier and more likely. Here’s why:

Housing

Suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We’ve been basically building one type of housing for the past 60 years: single family homes with attached garages, driveways and subdivisions modeled on the Plan for Riverside. When we’re not building single family homes, we’re building townhouses and apartment complexes with a similar auto-centric design. The fact is, despite the population growth in cities over the past 10 years and outside of new urbanism and rebuilding in existing neighborhoods, we have not really built any new greenfield communities that resembles any pre-depression urban form.

Finance

Even if we were to start building communities in greenfield locations with high densities that could support transit, like residential development that was built-in the streetcar era, we still likely could not build these communities without adding significant amounts of parking or by limiting density. This is in large part because of the financial institutions that provide funding for these developments do not properly know how to value these assets. Banks like to finance products in which they know and know well. The suburban form of development is one that banks have been financing for 60 years.

Other Government Agencies

November the 15th Street - also known as Flowe...

This kind of development is illegal under most zoning codes throughout the U.S. However, there are a variety of other factors at play. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s say that we can get the financing to build an urban development along new urbanism guidelines, for example. Let’s say we’ve got the zoning in place and the transit worked out. We still might not be able to build the dense, transit-oriented community we want due to the policies of other government agencies. For example, fire departments have been opposed to new urbanism developments due to the narrow streets within these developments. It turns out that the fire trucks have become too big to fit down these streets or the perception is such that it would be too much of an obstacle to navigate.

It may come as a surprise that transit agencies might also be unfriendly to transit-oriented development, particularly if the predominant mode of access to their stations is via car. The transit agency would want to make sure its commuter parking is located as close to the station as possible. This is a common tension when building transit-oriented development.

Commerce

Strip center in the 1900 block of N Clybourn Ave

Development like this, in the transit rich, dense, urban neighborhood of Lincoln Park in Chicago. Even in dense cities, retailers insist on providing enough parking to “access” their stores. (Photo credit: YoChicago via flickr)

Retailers, particularly of the big box and other large format varieties, often won’t build in town without sufficient parking. When I was in grad school, the adjunct professor for my land use planning course told us that when Chicago was first redeveloping the North/Clybourn corridor from industrial uses to retail, the city wanted far less parking than is currently there. However, the developers balked, insisting that they needed the parking so that customers could access their stores. Of course, there was already 3 bus lines and the CTA Red Line station right there.

As a transportation planner, I appreciate that Barro is trying to explain the nexus between transportation and land use. Land uses drive transportation decisions of whether to take mass transit or cars. But so do a lot of factors beyond just the zoning code and minimum parking requirements.